Three Free Electrons

Let's get this conundrum clear now. How do they behave in various setups. Our basic assumption is that these three free electrons are in equilateral triangle shape so that the distance between any two electrons is the same.

Three ElectronsThree Electrons upside down

 

1. Scenario

All spinning vectors are parallel. The key player is the bottom electron which has FTEP flux which ejects FTEPs from underneath itself towards the other two (for more information check out subsection Two Electron Based Particles from Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion). This electron (electron B) starts to change its spinning vector orientation after the other two. But which one of these other two electrons starts the spinning orientation changing? Again, the surrounding FTE density dictates the order. The one which is closer to Earth's center of mass (electron C) generates denser FTEP flux (*), hence will be the anchor for the other electron. So, the spinning vector changing order would be, top electron, down electron and the original anchor electron. This order is also the order for electrons leaving the scene.

(*) If the triangle is top down, then the upper electron which ejects FTEPs from underneath of itself towards the other upper electron will be the anchor for the other upper electron. In the picture right it would electron A.

2. Scenario

three_electrons_uud

There is two parallel spinning vectors (electrons A and B) and one antiparallel (electron C). This one is easy. Based on TL2 those antiparallel spinning vectors (B and C) generate repulsive force which triggers the movement for those electrons.

three_electrons_uud_phase2

That single antiparallel electrons experiences the repulsion first and after that, electron A changes its spinning vector, which leads to repulsion between electrons A and B. At the same time electrons A and B are travelling away from electron C.

 

three_electrons_uud_phase3

Again surrounding FTE ordered which electron changes its spinning vector orientation. Momentum will be conserved (the sum of momentum vectors is zero).

3. Scenario

Random spinning orientations (I'll write this later)

Special Edition

Christmas is coming! But that's not the topic of this post... In this post I want to go through some thoughts of mine regarding where TOEBI stands, what has happened, what will happen next and also thank Berry and Yop thoroughly.

TOEBI history started in summer of 2012. I wondered in couple of discussions with my friend about the essence of mass. What mass is? At that point there were no idea for it, but the thinking process kind of stucked on. Every now and then I thought about the question, draw some sketches and made visualization in my mind. I like to visualize subatomic processes in my mind even today and I also think that the ultimate TOE must work based on concrete objects (visualizable in one's mind).

At first I played around with mass and gravitational interaction. After a while I had created initial pet theory which seemed to work well enough (little I knew). On top of that I started to wonder if the same equation would work with particles. Naturally I realized pretty soon how complex the behaviour would be with particles so the development of proper mathematics for it took the second place because I realized mind blowing thing... particles are actually their own antiparticles! In certain conditions it's possible to annihilate those particles without the multibillion equipment ran by hundreds of physicists.

Such a realization took over my TOEBI time resources pretty effectively. I could harness antimatter for energy production... that would be something! Developing TOEBI in other branches didn't interest me anymore. I started to create contacts with experimental physicists in venues like ResearchGate. I had talks with few physicists but nothing materialized immediately. I still have few potential contacts, so let's hope for the best! But then something strange happened... two physicists, Berry and Yop came around, with attitude of course, but that's perfectly understandable. It was earned...

I had been beating my drum as loud as possible, provoking people with great headlines. Eventually I got what I wanted, feedback from real physicists. I was challenged, finally. For Berry and Yop my theory and its potential applications was a challenge... In what sense? Well, they both represent mainstream physics with mainstream theories etc. Crash and burn was, and still is, the target. They really want to see how crackpot takes the beating. During the process my thinking got sharper and I also got inspired for developing TOEBI once again, I found the spark! I got also good advices from these guys. Therefore, dear Berry and Yop, I thank you from bottom of my heart! I'm back baby!

What next? For sure, I'll keep on developing TOEBI in more rigorous manner, I have the motivation again. Naturally I'll keep on looking for the proper collaborator to my annihilation experiment. Doing it by myself isn't possible in my current phase of life. But that's fine, more time for the theory developing... I'm excited!

For Finnish readers, Happy Independence Day!!!

Muon - Take Two

Update: Second law of TOEBI is updated.

Based on the feedback from Berry and Yop I updated TOEBI to accommodate made observations. But before entering made changes I want to thank both Berry and Yop, Thank You! At the same time I have to apologize for barking current physicists for wrong reasons, namely for my own mistakes.

So what has changed? Here we go... new Second law of TOEBI

\vec F_{1\leftarrow 2}=G_{electron} \frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2_{12}}\vec{e_{12}}\cos\alpha\tag{1}


where M is electron mass, \alpha is angle between spinning vectors,
r is distance between electrons (center to center), \vec e_{12}=\frac{\vec r_{12}}{r_{12}} is unit vector pointing from electron 1 to electron 2 and

G_{electron}=f_{electron}^2 \ \mathrm{\frac{m^3}{kg}}\tag{2}


where f_{electron} is the spinning frequency of electron.

At first look, it might seem that I have narrowed down my second law even further, but that's not the case. Protons are constructed of three electrons, also muons are electrons with the bigger mass. Ok, how muons have gained the bigger mass? That's the topic of a future blog post.

Now we can say that TOEBI agrees with

F_{e-e}=F_{\mu-e}=F_{\mu-\mu}\tag{3}

Finally, if I may say so.

I might continue this post later...

Muon

Update: Yop was right. Therefore muon don't have reduced spinning frequency. It has gained a bigger mass by other means than by reducing spinning frequency. I'll "revamp" TOEBI accordingly.

You can check the basic facts about muon from Wikipedia. How does muon plays out in TOEBI which contains only one lepton family particle, electron? In general, contemporary particle physics makes the difference between leptons on how much their trajectories bend in a magnetic field, for example heavier particles' trajectories bend less.

According to experiments muon mass is approximately 206.768 times the electron mass. Another interpretation (based on TOEBI) is that muon is electron with reduced spinning frequency. Let's see how this interpretation plays out...

When electron interacts with a magnetic field the G factor of interacting particles is

G_{electron}=\frac{1}{2}f_{electron}^2 \ \mathrm{\frac{m^3}{kg}}

where f_{electron}\approx8.98755*10^{16} 1/s. Now Berry wrote

We separately consider an electron-electron pair, a muon-electron pair and a muon-muon pair, each of them with the same separation distance and anti-parallel spinning direction. Then we can cancel r^2 and compare magnitudes. Experimentally the forces are found to be the same, so according to Second Law of TOEBI we must have
(G_e+G_e)M_e^2=(G_\mu+G_e)M_\mu M_e=(G_\mu+G_\mu)M_\mu^2~\Leftrightarrow~2f_e^2=(f_\mu^2+f_e^2)\mu=2f_\mu^2\,\mu^2
where I have introduced the mass ratio \mu=M_\mu/M_e\approx 200.

First of all, I would like to have a reference which states that those forces are equal and how the measurements are done. But let's forget that for a moment. The most interesting interaction happens between electrons creating the magnetic field and muon particle, and the force between single electron and muon is

F=(G_{electron}+G_{muon})\frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2}\tag{1}

Now contemporary particle physics says that the muon mass is 206.768 times the electron mass, so what would be the reduced spinning frequency which will generate such a "mass"? In order to create 206.768 times greater mass illusion electron have to interact that much weaker which means that

\frac{G_{muon}}{G_{electron}}\approx1/206.768\tag{2}

which gives us

f_{muon}\approx\sqrt{1/206.768}f_{electron}\approx0.07f_{electron}\approx6.25*10^{15}\text{ 1/s}\tag{3}

Now, back to Berry's example. What kind of distance differences would give equal force measurements? Let's say that the distance between two electrons is 0.01 m, so we get force \approx6.7*10^{-23} N. So, what would be the distance between electron and muon in order to generate the exact same force? That's easy

6.7*10^{-23}\text{ N}=(G_{electron}+G_{muon})\frac{M_{electron}^2}{r^2}\tag{4}

which gives r\approx 7*10^{-3} m and two muons would give r\approx7*10^{-4} m. According to Berry forces should be exactly the same at the same distance, so references are needed.

Or what about the size of muon atoms? According to mainstream physics, the muons (same attraction, higher mass) have to have smaller orbitals, in agreement with experiments. According to your ideas (lower attraction, same mass), though, the orbitals would have to be larger. Bummer!

What prevents electrons from crashing into nucleus? According to TOEBI, it's the repulsion generated by FTEP flux originated from spinning (proton) electrons (see chapter Equilibrium State from Atom Model and Relativity). Naturally the same applies in case of muons, however, due to smaller spinning frequency, muons are able to get closer to nucleus than electrons.

The muon mass does not only affect its trajectory in magnetic fields. For example, if Mμ=Me, how come after decay there is an electron left plus a lot of energy? Where was the energy stored before the decay? Maybe in the spinning? Nope, because according to you, fμ<fe. Bummer!

What happens (according to TOEBI) at the moment when muon decays? Obviously it gains back its original spinning frequency f_{electron} due to its interactions with other particles. Increased spinning frequency causes the particle accelerate which leads at the end neutrino generation. This last chapter is a bit lousy due to my lack of research, sorry about that.

Major Update

Due to major errors in Theory of Everything by Illusion paper I needed to make a major update to it. You can download it from the link on the right area. Major changes are...

  • Third law of TOEBI is dropped out as obsolete
  • Second law of TOEBI fixed (force calculations for elementary particles)
  • Gravitational constant is included as is

There is also fixed multiple smaller errors. Some parts were simply removed as being not relevant.  All of this made Introduction to Theory of Everything by Illusion outdated! Hopefully I'll manage to update that paper in near future as well.

Update: Introduction to Theory of Everything is also updated.

The Biggest Blunder in TOEBI

For multiple reasons I had this idea that gravitational constant G is easily calculated from object's spinning frequency f_{object}.

G_{object}= \frac{1}{2}f_{object}^2 \frac{m^3}{kg}\tag{1}

That doesn't work, as Berry has pointed out. Good old gravitational constant seems to be still valid in our solar system. However, rotation induced force generation still works in TOEBI. Spinning particle interactions can be calculated with those laws. So the question goes, what I have missed regarding gravitational interactions?

In TOEBI, gravitational interaction must emerge and be calculable from its hypotheses and laws. We have two observations

  1. Gravitational constant is valid
  2. Attractive force can be increased with significant rotation frequency (apparently Earth's rotation frequency is too small to increase attractive force)

With these building blocks I should be able to save my theory of everything... I have an idea already.

Mercury

This blog post is inspired by the conversation in The biggest blunder in physics? where Berry was grilling TOEBI like no tomorrow. Calculations made inside my head are not necessarily the most accurate ones so here I do the math in format of a blog post.

Basic facts are here:

  • G_{Mercury}\approx 1.96*10^{-14}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} if whole Mercury is spinning at the same rate.
  • G_{Sun}\approx 3.2*10^{-13}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} based on estimated total spinning frequency [1]
  • M_{Sun}\approx1.98*10^{30} kg (TOEBI agrees with this value)
  • M_{Mercury}\approx3.3022*10^{23} kg (current value)

Everything should match with the next equation (Newton vs. TOEBI's II Law

G\frac{M_{Sun}M_{Mercury}}{R^2}= (G_{Sun}+G_{Mercury})\frac{M_{Sun}X}{R^2}\tag{1}

hence X\approx6.5*10^{25} kg. Obviously such a value is pretty suspicious. Let's keep that in mind...

Berry also pointed out that g_{Mercury}\approx 3.7 m/s² and that value would give Mercury even higher mass in case of G_{Mercury}\approx 1.96*10^{-14}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2}. What's happening? There is two possible explanation, either TOEBI can't calculate Mercury's mass or Mercury's crust and core have a very different spinning frequencies.

Due to Mercury's size it's obvious that there is much smaller pressure inside Mercury caused by gravitational interaction. Smaller pressure makes these potentially very different spinning frequencies between the core and the crust plausible.  I wonder if this same explanation works with my Moon mass calculation...? The idea of very large spin frequency differences between a stellar object's core and crust didn't occurred to my mind earlier, shame on me.

At this point, I shall release Berry. I might continue with this post later on.

Ok then, what is the real G_{Mercury}? We can calculate it from equation (1) by substituting X with Mercury's mass, so we  get G_{Mercury}\approx6.64*10^{-11}\frac{m^3}{kg*s^2} . Total spinning frequency is hence 1.15*10^{-5} 1/s which means sidereal rotation period \approx 1.007 d.

Now gravitational acceleration on the surface is

G_{Mercury}\frac{M_{Mercury}}{R_{Mercury}}\approx3.68\text{ } \frac{m}{s^2} \tag{2}

[1] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1994ApJ...435..874J/0000878.000.html

Successes

This blog post was requested by dwarf... TOEBI's successes, here you go... In theory-wise, TOEBI has been very successful indeed. No matter what was the topic, I have managed to calculate it in TOEBI or at least give a reasonable explanation according to it. But when we talk about successes in broader sense there will be a wall of fog weakening my vision.

What do I know for sure? I do have few individual supporters, who are working in fields like engineering and physics. We don't have any collaborations ongoing but we do change some ideas every now and then and I get feedback from them. These people consider TOEBI as an interesting and new insight of reality.

Second group consists of physicists who are potentially interested in collaborating with me. At the moment, I'm having talks with some of these physicists in order to start experimenting my "antimatter" annihilation idea with solid hydrogen. But active experimental physicists are busy with their ongoing projects so I don't think that anything concrete will happen immediately. I'm also amazed how hard it is for those physicists to get their research ideas through the bureaucracy.

The last thing I know for sure is who has been downloading my papers, at least previously, because currently my paper links point directly to viXra.org. Here's few institutions based on my logs:

  • CERN
  • Fermilab
  • NASA
  • Harvard University
  • University of Oxford
  • University of Cambridge
  • Imam Hossein University (Iranian nuclear technology orientated university)
  • Aalto University (largest university in Finland)
  • U.S. Justice Department (God knows why!)
  • countless other smaller universities and research organisations / companies
  • and many more which has slipped through my random log auditing

Paper downloads might have been done by students in those institutions as well as researchers and like. Ok, maybe CERN, Fermilab, NASA, Imam Hossein University and U.S. Justice Department downloads are made by hardcore researchers and like only.

That's all I know about TOEBI's successes. Interesting to see what new successes will emerge in next couple of years.

Skipping Fusion Economy?

If we can build asteroid busting devices based on TOEBI's antimatter concept then we should pull off electric power production based on the same concept as well. At first I thought that such a thing is impossible due to technical difficulties, for example, how in Earth one can manage to maintain a sufficient annihilation level? And in controlled manner!

Obviously we need to have a core which heats up the water. Ok then, we annihilate a needed and safe amount of protons. We can't heat up the water too much at once, otherwise turbines and other accessories would get broken. So there must be a mechanism which enables more or less constant feeding of protons to be annihilated. But how such a mechanism could work? I mean,  inserting solid hydrogen ready to get annihilated inside hot water can't be the easiest task.

Maybe some kind of insulated rod (holding prepared solid hydrogen at the end) could be pushed into middle of the core and then blasted away...? Maybe... maybe. At the moment I can't imagine another way round. Man, I should have my own lab!

Anyway, presented idea for electric power production is extremely safe and very little toxic waste is produced. Actually, the amount of toxic waste depends entirely on design of the rods. There is no possibility for uncontrolled energy releasing because those rods must be inserted into the core. Even in the unfortunate case when the whole core would explode (for any reason) used material (small amounts of hydrogen) won't pose a serious hazard, it would just burn away.

Antimatter Based Application

I finally managed to put together the latest theoretical know-how concerning antimatter based high yield energy production. Without further due... check out Antimatter Bomb. The paper lays out the theoretical blueprint for antimatter based bomb, it presents needed core material (solid hydrogen), theoretical requirements and used method. The paper does not describe any technical requirements, engineering solutions and so on. Pulling off a technical solution take (most likely) several years, hence sooner we start the research then bigger are the chances for preventing surprise asteroids.

I regard my paper as informative as saying that by splitting Uranium-235 atoms with neutrons we can release energy, it's just theoretical knowledge. Of course antimatter based energy production as described in the paper is easier to accomplish than e.g. fission based energy production, but never the less, it's just theoretical knowledge, and on top of that, it's highly speculative paper!

I do hope that my paper generates some debate and possibly encourages some bold experimental particle physicists to give it a try. Let's hope for the best!